Bibliographic record
Abstract
Peer-to-peer (P2P) learning within two distinct groups of disadvantaged adults was studied during a two-hour computer skills workshop. Of interest was whether or not P2P learning with this population was a viable method for increasing performance and confidence. Two qualified instructors at two locations taught the same introductory word-processing workshop to students enrolled in one of three learning intervention groups: P2P, Individual (IND), and No Intervention (NINT). Data was collected through pre- and posttests (all groups), quizzes (P2P and IND groups) and qualitative analysis of P2P group discussions. Quiz results indicated that those in the P2P group gained a better understanding of concepts than participants in the IND group; however, posttest results showed that the understanding was not maintained over time. Confidence in computer skills knowledge increased between the pre and posttest in all treatment groups, regardless of correct or incorrect answers. Analysis of P2P discussions found a significant relationship between the quality of peer discussions and the posttest scores. This study concluded there is a potential benefit of using P2P strategies with disadvantaged adults in the classroom, as confidence is developed and maintained, even as knowledge was not.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".